When The Civil Society Fails To Root out Social Injustice To The Weaker Section, God Intervenes By Paving Ways For Legal Laws Against It

By S. Arshad, New Age Islam

08 August 2019

There is a lot of hue and cry over the Triple Talaq Prevention Bill passed by the BJP government. Muslim religious scholars and bodies call this an interference in the religious affairs of the Muslims. The government argues that the Triple Talaq is an injustice to Muslim women and so it has brought the Bill which has a provision of three years of imprisonment for the husband while the Muslim religious bodies hold that the Triple Talaq is approved by hadiths and Imams of Muslims. For a long time, feminist organisations of Muslims had been campaigning against Triple Talaq or instant Talaq. During recent years, some divorced women; victims of the practice of instant Talaq had moved courts of law pushing the government to bring the law on Triple Talaq.

Many Islamic scholars had already been campaigning against Triple Talaq with references from the Quran and also with references from the life of the holy prophet pbuh and the Sahaba. But the religious seminaries were adamant on their stand that the Triple Talaq had sanction from some imams and other religious scholars of the past. They present even some hadith in favour of their argument.

The Triple Talaq had been misused by illiterate men who were not aware of the rules of Talaq mentioned in the Q  uran. They only knew that their imams and muftis told that instant Triple Talaq was valid and permissible and so they divorced their wives at any pretext. In most of the cases, the husbands did not have justification for their action. Still, the muftis would tell them that since they spoke the word Talaq three times, the Talaq was valid and if they wanted to get their wife back they must go through halala. Therefore, the evil practice of halala was an offshoot of instant Triple Talaq. These two evils ruined the lives of millions of Muslim women. Statistics show that the incidence of divorce among Muslim women is twice the national average.

Unfortunately, even before the passing of the Bill, the religious scholars associated with Islamic seminaries did not show any change in their attitude and were not ready to bring reformation in Talaq laws. They were adamant on the validity of instant Talaq. This gave the government the scope to bring legislation on Triple Talaq. The holy companions showed flexibility in approach while dealing with the incidents of Talaq. The second caliph Hadhrat Umar had changed the law of divorce according to the contingency of the period to save married women from harassment. During the present period, when the instant Talaq is being misused rampantly ruining homes and lives of Muslim women, the ulema of the present day would also have done well to bring reforms by banning instant Triple Talaq. The Quran cleanly says: At-Talaqo Marratan (Talaq is for two times). (Al Baqarah: 229)

It means the husband will give Talaq twice at the prescribe periods and after Talaq on two separate occasions, the husband and wife should sit together and decide whether they still want to separate or get back. If they decide to reconcile, they should make amends and if they decide to get separated, they should do so with kindness. Here are the verses:

A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. (Al Baqarah:229)

But if their intention is firm for divorce, Allah heareth and knoweth all things.(Al Baqarah:227)

O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count (accurately), their prescribed periods: (Al Talaq: 1)

The Quran at no occasion mentions Talaq thrice at one go. It advises both the husband and wife to make certain reconciliatory steps before making any decision. But here the conservative ulema have given the husband the tool of instant Talaq to illiterate and uneducated men to rampantly misuse it at the slightest pretext. And they present various flimsy arguments to justify the act. One argument is that killing a person with a sword is illegal and impermissible, but if a person kills his wife with a sword, he cannot say that he did not want to kill his wife, and the wife will not come alive because of his saying so. Similarly, if a man gives three Talaqs to his wife, the Talaq has occurred even if this form of Talaq is unwanted. But they ulema ignore the fact that killing the wife and divorcing the wife are not similar incidents. After a divorce, the wife is alive and can be taken back. The counter argument against their argument is that when a man is fasting and he eats to the full stomach by mistake, the mufti tells him that since he did not eat consciously or intentionally, his fast has not broken though the purpose of fasting is to remain hungry. Here, he is considered fasting though his stomach is full because it was not his intention to eat. But in the case of divorce, the mufti says that since he spoke out Talaq three times, the Talaq has occurred though the husband insists that he did not have the intention to divorce his wife.

The Quran clearly says that the husband should have firm intention for divorcing her wife: In Azamut Talaqa (But if their intention is firm for divorce). It means the divorce will not occur if the husband does not have firm intention. And one cannot have firm intention in a fit of anger, under the spell of wine, ganja or bhang or during severe illness. But the method of Talaq approved by our ulema and mufti are in violation of the enjoinment of the Quran. The ulema refused to see reason and did not show any change in approach to Talaq in the prevalent circumstances among the Muslim community.

Since it is the firm belief of the Muslims that all the political and social events on Earth are decreed by God, (Yudabbirul Amr) the passing of Triple Talaq Prevention Bill can also be regarded as God’s intervention as the Muslim civil society failed to take necessary steps to stop the misuse of triple Talaq. It is not the first time God has intervened to save the weaker sections of the society from the social injustice perpetrated to the female species by male chauvinism.

The evil practice of female feticide went on for decades leading to the killing of millions of girl children in mothers’ womb. Statisticians say that about 63 million women are missing and about 2 million babies go missing every year due to female feticide, malnutrition and other forms of discrimination against girls. In 1970, the government had passed bill allowing abortion in certain circumstances. This Act was rampantly misused to kill female foetuses leading to the killing of millions of girl children. When the civil society did not take steps to stop this evil and did not work to bring social reform to change the mindset of people, God had to intervene by paving the way for a law to make female feticide illegal. This stopped female feticide to a great extent thought the evil could not be rooted out completely.

Another instance of God’s intervention was the Prevention of Cruelty to women Act in 1983. Before that the practice of torture and killing of brides was rampant and millions of brides were killed due to this inhuman practice. The civil society could not stop this evil practice too and so finally God had to intervene by paving the way for the passing of the Prevention of Cruelty Act (498).

God loves all its creation. He even loves small insects as much as He loves human beings. So when He sees that men are doing grave injustice to the girls or women and the civil society is not doing anything to root out this injustice on its own, He paves the way for legislations and for that he brings those people in power who are instrumental in bringing such legislation. It is also a form of punishment to those responsible for ignoring the injustice and evil practices.

Now these so-called Muslim intellectuals have started saying that they have no objection to the law but the laws have wrong provisions. They should know that the law passed by the government is not of any Islamic country. So they should not blame the government of an un-Islamic country to bring a fool-proof legislation on Triple Talaq. If they did not want any interference from an un-Islamic government in their Personal Laws, they should have woken up and acted before the government acted.

At least, with the passing of this Bill, the shops of mullahs running Halala business will be closed and women will be saved from going through the indignity of Halala and blackmailing in the name of Triple Talaq.

S. Arshad is a regular columnist for NewAgeIslam.com

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/s-arshad,-new-age-islam/when-the-civil-society-fails-to-root-out-social-injustice-to-the-weaker-section,-god-intervenes-by-paving-ways-for-legal-laws-against-it/d/119422

New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Editor Sultan Shahin Urges UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to Consider Jihadi Literature and Intolerance of Minorities in Muslim Countries Too As Defamation of Islam

By Sultan Shahin, Founder-Editor, New Age Islam

8 July 2019

Oral Statement at 41st  Session of UN Human Rights Council, Geneva,  delivered on 8 July 2019

By Sultan Shahin, Founder-Editor, New Age Islam 

On behalf of Asian-Eurasian Human Rights Forum

General Debate, Agenda item 8, Follow-up and Implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action

Mr. President,

The Vienna Declaration recognizes that “every individual has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, expression and religion.” The U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic states, last March, condemning “defamation of religion” as a human rights violation. Speaking for the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Pakistan said that “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.” It called on states “to deny impunity” for those exhibiting intolerance of ethnic and religious minorities, and “to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs.”

However, Mr. President, news reports often emanate from Islamic countries, particularly Pakistan, of intolerance of and disrespect for minority religious beliefs. We also see free publication and distribution of Jihadi literature associating Islam with and indeed promoting human rights violations and extremist violence. Even school and madrasa text books are not free from extremist and exclusivist teachings, asking Muslims to stay away from religious and cultural celebrations of other religious communities. Pakistan’s notorious anti-blasphemy laws ensure that members of religious minorities are either lynched by mobs or awarded death sentences on mere accusations of blasphemy. The case of a Christian lady Aasia Bibi, mercifully out of the country now, has brought this issue to world’s attention. Ahmadiya Muslims are officially excluded from Islam and even debarred from claiming to be Muslim in any way. Like non-Muslim minorities, they too suffer indignities of various kinds in their daily life. Hundreds of young Hindu girls are routinely abducted and forcibly converted to Islam and raped in the name of marriage.

While this resolution seeks to protect Islam from defamation through any association with terrorism, the religion is routinely defamed in Muslim countries by publication of literature justifying violence against non-Muslim civilians. The very title of a long essay in the Taliban mouthpiece Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad was: ‘Circumstances in which the killing of innocent people among infidels is justified.’

I would, therefore, urge the Council to ask the Muslim countries to treat intolerance of minorities and Jihadi literature too as defaming the religion of Islam.

But it’s important to look at the issue in some detail.

In the essay referred to above, a Taliban scholar Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri justifies the 9/11 attacks on American people and institutions by saying things that would definitely amount to defaming Islam which the OIC is now seeking to ban. Al-Abeeri says that Islam supports indiscriminate killing of Innocent civilians under special circumstances. He talks of the Islamic permissibility of “brutal and mass killing of the enemy.”  Starting from the “lawfulness of burning the enemy” and “opening the dams of rivers and lakes” to drown the inmates of a fort or besieged town, launching mortar attack, the fatwa goes on to justify “releasing snakes and scorpions on the enemy even if non-combatant women and children are also present.” Then it argues, “the lawfulness of these measures including ‘demolishing their buildings, spreading poison and smoke,” if it is not possible to capture or dominate them without resorting to these practices”. Having thus “established” the justification of a terror attack against civilians, the Taliban scholar then goes on to justify the destruction of American cities and questions the “sanity of any Muslim who declares killing the Americans in New York and Washington as unlawful.”

These arguments are made quoting several reputed medieval jurists of the stature of Imam Nawawi, Allama Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdīsī, Imām al-Bayhaqi and Al-Sahihain. (Al-Sahihain refers to Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih al-Muslim, the two books of Ahadith, considered the most authentic sources of Islamic faith after the holy Qur'an).

 Taliban scholar Al-Abeeri concludes: “Therefore, given the arguments from Shariah, it can be said that whoever said that killing the Americans in New York and Washington is unlawful actually shoots in the dark. He is saying this in ignorance. Killing the enemy by burning or drowning, destroying or damaging buildings to capture them or terrifying the enemy are the points on which the majority of scholars of Islam agree. This practice was followed by the holy companions of the Prophet. How can then someone who is blind in the love of the Americans question something which is authenticated by the Quran and the Hadith.”  (Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad, January 2013)

Taliban’s tirade against Islam continues in its mouthpiece Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad month after month. The essay referred to above had appeared in parts for eight months in 2013. In the latest issue the Taliban mouthpiece (March 2019), has published an article by Taliban scholar Sameer Khan Shaheed titled “Markazi Nukta (Central Point) which says: “In Saudi Arabia's view, Jihad against the Soviet Union was purely Islamic. When the same Jihad is waged against America, it is wrong in their eyes. We announce disassociation from those who consider Jihad a means to please America. As a matter of fact, Jihad will remain Farz-e-Ain (compulsory act for all individual Muslims in all conditions) unless the United States and its apostate allies leave the Islamic land. And in addition to the apostates of the land, those tawaghoot (oppressors) are also included in its allies, who are engaged in making the rich richer, and the poor poorer, and also those who aggressively oppose Muslims who are seeking to establish the system of Tauheed (Oneness of God) and change the rules set by Allah according to their own wishes” (Nawa e Afghan Jihad, March 2019, p.66)

Later in the article, Sameer Khan quotes Abdullah Azzam, considered the ideological mentor of Osama bin Laden as saying, “During my stay in Afghanistan, I realized that Tauheed could not enter into the human spirit peacefully, nor can it become as strong and powerful as in the field of Jihad. I mean to say that the work of Tauheed is done by means of sword, and not by reading books and gaining knowledge related to aqaid(creeds)” (Nawa e Afghan Jihad, March 2019, Markazi Nukta by Sameer Khan, p.61)

In another Jihadi publication widely distributed in Pakistan, Masood Azhar, the leader of terrorist organisation Jaish-e-Mohammed, recently listed as terrorist by the UN, writes, in his book “The Virtues of Jihad," “Fellow Muslims! We cannot appeal to the unbelievers to assist us; we have to understand that the annihilation of Muslims is their main purpose and mission; they are overjoyed upon seeing the free flow of Muslim blood. The real sorrow is that there is no value of a Muslim life in another Muslim’s sight. The oppressed Muslims are looked upon by other Muslims with hatred and insignificance. When we have reached this stage of indifference, then why should we expect the Muslim blood to be of any worth? It can be said that the value of this blood is even less than water. The Muslims have generally looked upon the persecution and oppression of their neighbouring Muslim communities with the view that it did not affect them and that their fate was safe. They have witnessed the torture and murder of countless innocent civilians and remained unaffected by the humiliation which their mothers and sisters were continually subjected to. The Muslim spectator of this carnage feared even to offer verbal support in case he would offend his masters and risk his worldly status.

“The Muslims should urgently rectify their situation and they should put the fire out before it reaches their homes and accept the Muslim’s issues as their very own and try to feel their pain. We should never make mockery of the oppressed but instead should fight shoulder to shoulder against unbelievers avenging the death of each and every Muslim” (Masood Azhar, The Virtues of Jihad, p. 132-133)

In a book in Urdu titled “Yahud ki Chalees Beemariyan” (Forty Diseases of Jews, available in pdf on alqalamonline.com.), Masood Azhar thoroughly demonises the Jewish community whose scriptures Muslims have been asked by Quran to believe in as God’s own commandments (Quran 4:162-163, and several other verses), and many of whose prophets have been referred to in Quran by name as prophets sent by God. Speaking of the significance of this book, another Jihadi scholar Abu Lubaba writes in its Introduction, “The way the Quran condemns the Jews and the Prophet has advised the believers to avoid their evil attitudes, and the way the books of Prophet’s biography (seerat) mentions hatred of Jews towards Islam and our dear prophet Muhammad Mustafa (peace be upon him); having studied all this, Muslims should have abstained from the practices of this ‘condemned and hateful nation.’ Despite the Jews being complete Fitna (mischief), Dajjal (Devil) and deceitful, Muslims are associated with them. Muslims have started believing their practices to be good and worth imitating. Having neglected the blessed ways of the Prophet, they have adopted their (Jews’) filthy and nonsensical customs and profiles,” (“Masood Azhar, Yahud Ki Chalees Bimariyan (Forty Diseases of Jews), Introduction by Abu Lubabah)

In a bid to promote exclusivism among Muslims, religious schools and seminaries around the world quote the following fatwa of revered 13th—-14th century scholar Ibn-e-Taimiya, which was also quoted recently by ISIS publication ‘Rumiya’ in its 6th issue:

“The Ruling of Those Who Celebrate Mushrik (polytheistic) Festivities

“Ibn Taymiyyah was asked about a Muslim who prepares food like the Christians do for New Year’s, or other times like the Feast of the Baptism, Christmas, Lentil Thursday (“Holy Thursday”), or the Sabbath of Light (“Holy Saturday”), and about one who sells something to them for their celebrations -- is it permissible for Muslims to do so or not?

“He answered, saying, “All praise is due to Allah. Regarding their celebrations, it is not permissible for Muslims to resemble them (Christians and Jews) in anything: not in their food, their clothing, their bathing, their lighting of candles, the abandoning of one’s work or worship, or otherwise. It not permissible to prepare a meal or give gifts, nor to sell that which assists them in doing any of that, nor to allow children or others to play games specific to these celebrations, nor to dress up [for them]. Overall, Muslims must not give special consideration to [kafir] celebrations at all. Rather, those days of festivity should be – to the Muslims – just like any other day.

“A Muslim’s intentionally giving consideration to one of these days [by doing something special without actually intending to celebrate the occasion itself] was disliked by groups of the Salaf(early Islam) and the Khalaf (later Islam). As for his specifically doing anything of what was mentioned above [in celebration of the occasion], then there is no dispute about it amongst the scholars. Rather, some scholars opine that whoever does such things has committed kufr (act of unbelief), since doing so involves holding the religious activities of kufr in esteem. Others have said that whoever slaughters a ram on a day of their celebrations, it is as if he slaughtered a pig.” (ISIS’s magazine, Rumiyah, 6th issue, p.16)

But while the Jihadis are free in Pakistan to demonise Islam and Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), by saying the kind of things quoted above, the regular journalists are not free to express dissent of any kind. As Opposition leader Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said on the International Press Freedom Day this year, "There is an undeclared censorship in Pakistan. The space for democratic rights has dangerously shrunk, the media and the right to freedom of expression are under siege. Journalists are under attack both from state and non-state actors. Of the 26 journalists murdered between 2013 and 2018, only 16 cases proceeded to court, trials were only completed in six cases and only one conviction was awarded by a lower court. But none were punished as the sole conviction was also overturned.” Even the brutal lynching and murder of a 23-year-old journalism student, Mashal Khan, has not brought the slightest change in Pakistan’s attitude towards its harsh blasphemy laws.

Related Article:

Do Not Entertain Any Defamation of Islam Resolution Until Islam Is Protected From Defamation by Jihadi Literature in the Islamic World First, Sultan Shahin Asks UN Human Rights Council

http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/sultan-shahin,-editor,-new-age-islam/do-not-entertain-any-defamation-of-islam-resolution-until-islam-is-protected-from-defamation-by-jihadi-literature-in-the-islamic-world-first,-sultan-shahin-asks-un-human-rights-council/d/13507

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/sultan-shahin,-founder-editor,-new-age-islam/editor-sultan-shahin-urges-un-human-rights-council-to-consider-jihadi-literature-and-intolerance-of-minorities-in-muslim-countries-too-as-defamation-of-islam/d/119118

New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Caliphate Ideology vs. Secular State: The Untenable Statement of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, And the Irrefutable Declaration of Al-Azhar Grand Shaikh Ahmad Al-Tayyib

New Age Islam Special Correspondent

20 July 2019

In his latest video message titled "Don't forget Kashmir", a techno-Wahhabi ideologue and Al Qaeda’s leader, Ayman Al-Zawahiri says: “Kashmir is a bleeding wound in our hearts. Hearts that grieve with the pain of many such bleeding wounds”… “It is a tragedy made even direr by the fact that they are caught between Hindu brutality on the one hand and the treachery and conspiracies of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies on the other”.

Zawahiri urges the 'Mujahideen' to “liberate the Kashmiri jihad from the clutches of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies,” as the jihad is wholly and solely “for the sake of Allah” as opposed to a struggle “for the sake of international criminals.” He goes on to say: "the Mujahideen in Kashmir—at this stage at least—should single-mindedly focus on inflicting unrelenting blows on the Indian Army and government, so as to bleed the Indian economy and make India suffer sustained losses in manpower and equipment.”

An identical jihadist rendition of ‘caliphate ideology vs. secular state’ by Ayman al-Zawahiri was replicated in the war cry of Ansar Ghazwatul Hind leader, Zakir Rashid Bhat Moosa. The first statement by Moosa that appeared in several Kashmiri media outlets contained this text of his speech:

“If we are fighting for secular state, then, I think, we cannot be martyrs. I know we have to first fight for freedom and push out Indian army which has occupied us. But, our intention should be that we have to achieve ‘Azadi’ to establish Islamic rule and not for secular state. If we are fighting for secular state then my blood won’t be spilled for that purpose.”

Now contrast the above pan-Islamist argument of Zakir with Zawahiri’s newly-released statements focused exclusively on Jammu & Kashmir. Al-Qaida's global chief calls for the jihad in Kashmir wholly and solely for “establishing Caliphate” and therefore he opined that the valley needed to be freed from the clutches of Pakistan's ISI and army as well as the Indian state. “Break all borders created by Britain in India”, and “unite under the credo of the one God”, Zawahiri said in a video released in September 2014, titled “a message that we did not forget you, our Muslim brothers in India”.

Zawahiri highlighted several irreconcilable conflicts between the Islamic principles of Sharia and the premises of secular state quoting from both Qur’an and Hadith and distorting the actual meanings of their texts and other analogies. Thus, he tried to justify his untenable positions in such a crafty theological manner that, to the theologically untrained Muslim youths, he offered a justification for the Khuruj (rebellion) and Hijrah (Islamic migration) against the non-Muslim countries like India to establish an Islamic caliphate.

In different territories, it was, by and large, the same tone and tenor that was reflected in the jihadist clarion calls made by the young slain militant in South Kashmir, Zakir Musa, who was emerged as a militant commander of Hizbul Mujahideen and ended up as chief of Ansar Ghazwatul Hind. In his video speech released in May 2017, he addressed the separatist leaders in Kashmir in these unequivocal and categorical words:

“What I said about hanging was not about All Parties Hurriyat Conference leaders but moderates who say after Azadi [freedom] we will establish a secular state. Because I know if we get freedom from India then we will have to fight those who support secular state.....I am hopeful Allah is with me, even if no one supports me. Rest, I stand on my statement. If the intention of Geelani and others is freedom for Islam and imposition of Shariah after freedom, then I am not against them......I have already said that we are fighting for ‘Azadi Baraye Islam’ [freedom for the sake of Islam]. My blood will spill for Islam and not for secular state.”

In another audio clip, Zakir Musa pitched the democratic principles of governance against the basic tenets of Islam and urged the Indian Muslims to boycott the elections and “be wary of the Congress and BJP, the Samajwadi Party and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the Trinamul Congress or Bahujan Samaj Party, for all are only faces of tyranny”.

Pitching democracy and territorial nationality against the Islamic principles of governance is the key political Islamist narrative being flagged off by the jihadist ideologues—from Zawahiri to Zakir. But contrary to this jihadist underpinning, there is substantial evidence in the Quran and Sunnah (the Prophetic traditions) to make it possible for us to adopt both democracy and territorial nationality as compatible to Islamic principles. It is sufficient to quote these two verses of the Qur’an:

“Those who respond to their Lord and attend to their prayers; who conduct their affairs by mutual consultation and spend out of what We have provided for them” (42:38)

“So by mercy of Allah, [O Prophet], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah. Indeed, Allah loves those who rely upon Him. (3:159)”

These Qur'anic verses clearly exhort the Islamic principle of Shur’a (consultation) in dealing with the community affairs. In a secular democracy today, mutual consultation is a self-evident proposition. Based on this, even Muslim communities the world over are now inserting the Islamic Sharia rulings, courts and tribunals into the secular legal system and common law. Today, legal decisions based on cultural values at odds with democratic principles are accepted and incorporated into the laws of democratic countries which strengthen the religious freedom.

Significantly, in 2011, the world’s largest Sunni Islamic seminary, Al-Azhar Sharif issued an 11-clause declaration titled “document around the future of Egypt” which was read out on national television by the Al-Azhar Grand Shaikh Ahmad al-Tayyibb himself. The prominent Islamic jurists who participated in the drafting of the al-Azhar document explored the possibility of declaring a “secular” state as compatible to Islamic Shariah. After serious deliberations, the Al-Azhar ended up describing the future ideal state as “national” (al-Waaniyyah), “constitutional” (al-Dusturiyyah), “democratic” (al-Dimuqraiyyah) and “modern” (al-Haditha).

Thus, this declaration of the leading Al-Azhar Islamic scholars demanded the establishment of “a national, constitutional, democratic and modern state, founded on a constitution approved by the nation”. It also sought “the separation of powers, guarantees for human rights, the power to legislate given to the elected representatives of the people in accordance with the correct Islamic understanding.”

The Al-Azhar declaration premised that the principle of governance according to Shariah is merely defined by the convergence between the principles operating in governance and in the Islamic tradition. It clearly stated that there is no “religious state” in Islam, be it in its history, its legislation, or in its civilization. Islam has left to people “the administration of their society and the choice of the tools and of the institutions that realize their interests, with the condition that the comprehensive principles of the Islamic Shariah be the main source of legislation, and as long as those who follow other revealed religions may refer to their own religious principles (Shari’ah Diniyyah) to deal with their affairs of personal status.”

Related Article:

Sultan Shahin’s Response to Dr Ayman Al-Zawahirl’s Message Inciting Kashmiris for Jihad: Kashmiris Know Their Islam Better than You Think, Stop Trying to Misguide Them

Does Islam Justify Rebellion Perpetrated by Modern Terrorist Groups?

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/new-age-islam-special-correspondent/caliphate-ideology-vs-secular-state--the-untenable-statement-of-ayman-al-zawahiri,-and-the-irrefutable-declaration-of-al-azhar-grand-shaikh-ahmad-al-tayyib/d/119248

New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Does Islam Justify Rebellion Perpetrated by Modern Terrorist Groups?

By Ghulam Ghuas Siddiqi, New Age Islam

19 July 2019

The word used in Islamic juristic discourses to describe ‘rebels’ is ‘Bughat’. The word comes from the root word ‘Baghyun’, which in its several forms could mean 1) to commit injustice or tyranny, 2) to transgress or cause corruption or 3) to seek something. According to classical Islamic jurists, rebels are those who withdraw themselves from obedience to a lawful state or any established government and wage armed struggle against it.

A renowned Hanafi scholar, Ibn Nujaym defines ‘rebels’ (Bughat), “(The Arabic word) ‘Bughat’ is the plural of ‘Baaghi’. He who committed transgression [bagha] against the people is the one who oppressed and transgressed. Baghyun means ‘to make mischief. From it is derived the term ‘Al-Firqa Al-Baghiya’(the rebellious sect) because it deviated from the moderation.... and the rebellious group is the one that does not abide by the writ of the state (Al-Imam Al-Adil has been translated here as ‘writ of the state’)”. (Ibn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-raiq, vol.5, p.150)        

Al-Haskafi Hanafi says, “Conventionally, the term ‘Baghyun’ means to seek that which is unlawful such as aggression, oppression, tyranny or terror”. (Durr-e-Mukhtar, vol.4, p.261)

The lexicologists have made several definitions for rebellion. In its legal application, the term ‘rebellion’ refers to the breach of all legal, constitutional and Islamic limits to spread mischief, disorder, chaos, strife (Fitna) in society or state.

Defining different kinds of rebels, Ibn Humam Hanafi says, “According to the conventional usage among the jurists, the word ‘Baaghi’ (rebels) denotes the one who rebels against the authority of the government. Those who challenge the writ of the state are four kinds:

1.    Those who rebel without any incorrect interpretation [Tawil]—whether they have a force of arms or not—and who seize the wealth of people, murder them and terrorise travellers on the road. They are known as brigands.

2.    The group of the rebels who are just like the aforementioned group. They do not have a force of arms, but do have an incorrect interpretation. The legal ruling upon this group is that they are considered brigands; if they fight they are to be killed and crucified (by the law of the state) and if they steal the wealth of the Muslims, the prescribed punishment has to be given to them, in the manner that is well-known [in Islamic law].

3.    The group of the rebels who have a force of arms and protection, and who rebel against the writ of the government with an incorrect interpretation and believe that the government is based on falsehood, disbelief or disobedience, and that according to their incorrect interpretation, it is obligatory to rebel against it; this group is called Kharijites. They declare lawful the blood and wealth of the Muslims, capture their womenfolk and declare the Companions of God’s Messenger (peace be upon him) apostates. According to the majority of the jurists and the traditionalists, they are given the same ruling as that of the rebels.

4.    A group of Muslims who rebelled against the government, but did not declare lawful what the Kharijites declared lawful, such as shedding the blood of the Muslims and capturing their children. This group is also considered amongst the rebels [Bughat]. (Ibn Humam, Fathul Qadir, Vol.5, p.334)

Zann al-Din b. Nujaym Hanafi defines rebels as “a group of Muslims who rebelled against a legitimate government, but did not declare lawful what the Kharijites declared lawful, such as shedding the blood of the Muslims and capturing their children” (Ibn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-Raiq, vol.5, 151)  

Ibn Abidin Shami describes rebels as “The people of rebellion include every faction that possesses force of arms and seeks to gain power; they fight the people of justice on the basis of an incorrect interpretation and argue that “the truth is with us” and that they are the true authorities” (Ibn Abidin Shami, Raddul Muhtar vol.4, p.262, translated by Dr. Tahirul Qadri in Fatwa on terrorism)

It is narrated by Hudhaifa b. Al-Yaman that “the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “there will be after me leaders who do not follow my guidance and do not follow my Sunnah and there will be among them men whose hearts are like those of the devil in the body of a human being”, and I asked the prophet (peace be upon him), “what should I do at that time if I reach it?”. He said, “Listen and obey the (state) ruler, even if lashed your back and took your money, listen and obey”

Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim narrate from Abdullah b. Abbas, “If someone dislikes his state ruler, he must be patient, because if he comes against the ruler in a rebellious or destructive manner by only a hand-span and dies, he dies in a state of pre-Islamic ignorance and sin”.

These Ahadith are of utmost importance as unequivocal evidence that encourages Muslims to have patience, even when facing persecution from the ruler, so that the peace of a state is maintained and strife does not occur. It inspires them to go to the extreme of having patience even if the ruler is corrupt or unjust, with the reason being maintenance of peace.

The objective of maintaining peace, inherent in such Ahadith, must be instilled into the minds of the present 21st century Muslims. To achieve this objective in modern times, they need to first understand it that those who live under a particular government, corrupt, unjust or truly democratic, they are required to obey the ruling government and live peacefully. While facing any sort of marginalization or injustice, they should not take up arms in a rebellious way against the government. Fearing that their act of rebellion might result into strife, they should have patience instead. The reason is that it was prohibited by the Prophet (peace be upon him) to rebel even against the unjust ruler, not to speak of the just government. This prohibition also applies today to the terrorist groups which make rebellious struggle against their regimes. Thus they are doing an act of rebellion which is prohibited in Islam.         

A regular Columnist with NewAgeIslam.com, Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi Dehlvi is an Alim and Fazil (Classical Islamic scholar), with a Sufi-Sunni background and English-Arabic-Urdu Translator. He has also done B.A (Hons.) in Arabic, M.A. in Arabic and M.A in English from JMI, New Delhi. He is Interested in Islamic Sciences; Theology, Jurisprudence, Tafsir, Hadith and Islamic mysticism (Tasawwuf).

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/ghulam-ghuas-siddiqi,-new-age-islam/does-islam-justify-rebellion-perpetrated-by-modern-terrorist-groups?/d/119237

New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

The True Meaning of Kun Fayakoon - ‘Be and It Is’

By S. Arshad, New Age Islam

17 July 2019

God is omnipotent and omniscient. He has created the universe and has full control over the affairs of the universe. In the Quran, God says that whatever he intends to do or create, he just says, Be and it is. This gives an idea of the power of God on the universe. The Quran affirms this attribute of God in about eight verses:

“She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!” (Al-i-Imran: 47)

“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.” (Al-i-Imran: 59)

“It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.”(Maryam: 35)

“To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is.”(Al Baqarah: 117)

“It is He who created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): the day He saith, "Be," behold! it is.” (Al Anam: 73)

“Verily, when He intends a thing, His Command is, "be", and it is!”(Yasin: 82)

“For to anything which We have willed, We but say the word, "Be", and it is”. (Al Nahl: 40)

“It is He Who gives Life and Death; and when He decides upon an affair, He says to it, "Be", and it is”.(Al Mumin:68)

If we take the verses of the phrase ‘Kun Fayakoon’ at face value, it will give a wrong idea about the creation of the Universe and about the nature of God. God does what He wills but He does not do it out of His whims or for fun. If the phrase is taken at face value then it would mean that God’s creation is an illusion and does not have any principle or laws to govern it and there is not any fixed system for its governance.  There are other verses that suggest that despite his power to create or destroy anything at any time, he sticks to his own principles and does not break the laws created by Himself in order to maintain order and system in the universe. The Quran says, ‘Yudabbirul Amr’ (He plans his affairs with great precision). The Quran also calls God, the Wise (Hakeem). After creating the Universe, God prescribed principles and laws for every matter according to which it works. God does not interfere with their inner workings or properties. That’s why the Quran says, La Tabdila Li Kalimatillah (There is no change in his words/principles). He says ‘Be and it is’. That is true; whatever he wills takes place or shape but that does not mean that the matters of the universe do not work according to any principle. If that had been the case, the universe would have been in complete disarray. But that is not the case. The universe runs smoothly according to their principles and God’s schemes. The phrase only means that God is Omnipotent and He can do what He wills. To drive home this point, the following verses can be presented:

“Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority), regulating and governing all things”.(Yuus:3)

“He Who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between, in six days,” (Al Furqan: 59)

“Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days?” (Ha Mim Sajda: 9)

“It is Allah Who has created the heavens and the earth, and all between them, in six Days,” (Sajda: 4)

“Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days,” (Al Araf: 54)

In the above quoted verses the Quran tells us that the earth and heaven were created in six days: the earth was created in two days and the rest in four days.

So, God had said, Be and it took six days for it to be. Moreover, six days were not six days of earth but of heaven. The time span of the earth and the heavens are different. The Quran says,

“He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up to Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning”. (As Sajdah:5)

“Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.”(Al Hajj: 47)

From the verses quoted above it is learnt that when God says one day it means one thousand years for people on earth.

So when God says the Heaven and Earth were created in six days, He means that it actually took six thousand years for the heaven and earth to take its final shape. So the universe came into being in six thousand years after God’s decree.

This corroborates the scientific theory of evolution. The universe was first in the shape of a condensed energy, Golden Egg (Hiranyagarbha). The Quran also tells this in the following verse:

“Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?” (Al Anbiyaa: 30)

The Cosmic Egg remained in that state for one year according to the Upanishads. It means the Cosmic Egg remained in that state for 365000 years.  After that the Big Bang took place which the Quran also supports (before we clove them asunder). God caused the Big Bang and the universe took its shape. This all shows that the universe came into being according to a well designed plan and as a result of God’s mastery and not at once. ‘Be it and it is’ means that whatever is created or takes place in the universe is due to God’s will. All the affairs on earth and heaven are decided according to God’s will and the matter takes its own course by virtue of the properties and attributes bestowed on them by God and only He has the power to control the affairs of the universe.

S. Arshad is a regular columnist for NewAgeIslam.com

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/s-arshad,-new-age-islam/the-true-meaning-of-kun-fayakoon---‘be-and-it-is’/d/119215

New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Nusrat Jahan Reminds Muslims that Religion and Culture Must be Dissociated

By Arshad Alam, New Age Islam

12 July 2019

Nusrat Jahan, a Muslim woman, has been a well-known face in Kolkata cinema. The ruling Trinamool congress gave her a ticket to contest parliamentary elections. Muslims voted for her overwhelmingly and consequently she was elected with a handsome margin. The majority of Muslims who voted for her had no religious issues with her although they knew that Islam prohibits women from acting in cinemas or in any other form of the entertainment industry. The conservatives always had their reservations about her but she won despite their resistance.

The tide turned when she married a Jain and that too without converting him to Islam. To make matters worse she married him according to all the Jain marriage rituals and in full view of the shutterbugs. The image of a Muslim woman dressed as a Hindu-Jain bride was perhaps too much for a section of Muslims. Those who had voted for her earlier now starting calling her a ‘traitor’. Some even started abusing her for marrying outside the religion. The Ulema, as always, proclaimed that the marriage was illegal as Muslims are not allowed to marry outside the community without the other person converting to Islam. The undertone was that she was co-habiting with a man without any social or legal sanction.

To make matters worse, Nusrat Jahan entered the parliament with sari, bangles, Sindoor and Mangalsutra to take oath as a new member of parliament. The Mullahs were quick to condemn her appearance and attire and pointed out that the articles that she was wearing were all Hindu symbols and that by doing so, she had hurt the feelings of Muslims. Some were more charitable, arguing that it was a matter of personal choice, but added in the same breadth that she was not dressed as a Muslim. Muslim women are not supposed to apply Sindoor or even wear a Mangalsutra which is a mark of being married in the Hindu tradition. As if to poke a finger in the eyes of conservative Muslims, Nusrat Jahan subsequently attended a Hindu ritual at the ISKCON temple in Kolkata which further alienated any Muslim support which she had. Writing in the Urdu daily Inquilab, its editor Shakeel Shamsi implied that she will lose next time she contests from the same constituency as Muslims will no longer vote for her.

Only time will tell whether she loses or retains her seat, but the whole episode has thrown some questions which Muslims as a community need to think about. Muslims need to answer why is it that when a Muslim woman dons the vermillion and a Mangalsutra, she is immediately condemned as being as a non-Muslim? What is this conception that there is a particular dress code for Muslim women? From where has this perception arisen in the first place? Is there a Muslim dress code in the first place? Muslims are perhaps the most diverse religious group in the world. Wherever Islam has gone, it has adapted to local cultural traditions. The cultural tradition of India is mostly Hindu so why is it a problem when Indian Muslims adopt Hindu cultural traditions. In fact, Muslims should call Hindu traditions as their own since they have been part of this cultural complex for centuries now. For many centuries, this was the received wisdom of average Muslim men and women in India.

However, today we see a conscious desire to separate from our own cultural moorings. There is an attempt to argue that religion and culture cannot be separate entities in Islam. This certainly is a new ideological construct which did not exist before. There are many Muslim regions in the world which are currently experiencing this painful process of getting alienated from their own cultural traditions. Indian Muslims are no exception; there are similar debates going on in even Indonesia and Kazakhstan.

However, this argument is fallacious and a-historical. Islam grew in a particular cultural context which was Arab. It is natural therefore that the dominant Islamic culture will lend itself to a certain Arab bias. Islam and Arab culture are so finely interwoven that it is difficult to separate the two. And that’s why within the Arab mind, there is no separation between religion and culture: they are one and the same. However, for non-Arab contexts, this becomes a huge problem. Because the more Muslim one becomes, the more one is expected to move closer to an Arab orthopraxis.  The consequence is that Indian Muslims get alienated from their own cultural contexts which start to erode the already feeble pluralism in the country. Non-Arab Muslims need to ask a simple question: If Arabs were not expected to give up their culture when they embraced Islam, why should they (the non-Arabs) be so willing to give up their cultural moorings? For example, since Islam is a proselytizing religion, Muslims have always worked towards converting people. In India, it is common that when a Hindu converts to Islam, he is immediately given a ‘Muslim’ name. Now, Muslim history itself tells us that none of the original converts to Islam changed their names. Abu Bakr, Umar and other companions of the prophet never changed their names after becoming Muslims. They had Arab names before and even after they became Muslims. No one felt any need to change their names. So why it is that non-Arab Muslims must insist that a convert’s name should be changed? Why can’t Ramesh Kumar be an acceptable Muslim name?

Names are just one facet of a cultural complex. Our dress patterns, our folk songs are all our cultural heritage and there is no need to jettison them just because one becomes a Muslim. However, this is not acceptable to the conservative Ulema who by arguing that religion and culture should be the same, are in fact fighting an ideological battle to control the minds of the Muslim community and make them appear as a separate religious and cultural entity. That is why it is not acceptable to them that Nusrat sports certain cultural markers associated with Hindu religion. But this certainly needs to be called out. By allowing the Ulema to set the agenda, Muslims are actually harming themselves in the long run.

It must be told that the Ulema are not the only ones that need to be called out. The Hindu right wing, which is currently toasting Nusrat Jahan, would have reacted very differently if the characters in the current episode had been different. Just for a minute imagine a Muslim man marrying a Hindu actress according to Muslim traditions. All hell would have broken loose and accusations of love jihad would be levelled against the man. Like the Islamists, the Hindu right wing also works overtime to weaken Indian pluralism. In their intense hatred of Muslims, these Hindu right wingers do not realise that they are like carbon-copies of the very same Islamists that they claim to oppose. 

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-politics/arshad-alam,-new-age-islam/nusrat-jahan-reminds-muslims-that-religion-and-culture-must-be-dissociated/d/119166

New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism